A LEELA Vs. PALANIYANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O.S.No.84 of 1995, on the file of First Additional Sub Judge, Pondicherry, is the revision petitioner.

(2.) PLAINTIFF is aggrieved by the impugned order whereby the lower court has directed the plaintiff to value the suit under Sec.40(1) of the Pondicherry Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, and also directed her to pay the deficit court-fee within 15 days from the date of order and amend the plaint accordingly. The lower court further observed that if there was default in complying with that direction, the suit will be dismissed.

(3.) BY the impugned order, the lower court found that the valuation of the suit under Sec.25(d) is not correct. It said that without a prayer for setting aside the document, plaintiff is not entitled to any relief even though the relief is couched in the form of a declaration. The lower court has further found that it is the substance of the plaint that has to be looked into and not the form in which it has been drafted, and if the relief is to be granted, court-fee will have to be paid under Sec.40 of the Court-fees Act. So holding, plaintiff was directed to amend the valuation and also pay the balance court-fees.